DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 23 December 2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Amendments to the Claims and Arguments/Remarks filed 23 December 2025, in response to the Office Correspondence dated 10 November 2025, are acknowledged.
The listing of Claims filed 23 December 2025, have been examined. Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-16 are pending. Claims 10-16 are newly added and are supported by the originally-filed disclosure. Claims 2 and 5 are canceled.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DiModugno (US9464227B2) in view of Clark (AU606890B2). Claims 1 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DiModugno (US9464227B2) in view of Clark (AU606890B2) and in further view of the evidentiary reference Klimov (WO2015124330A1). Claims 10-16 are subject to the same rejections as claim 1 from which they depend, and are additionally addressed in new grounds of rejection below. The applicant's arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The applicant's arguments and are addressed further below in the section titled “Response to Arguments”.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The newly added claims are numbered 10-13 and 15-16, skipping claim 14. The applicant should clarify the status of omitted claim 14.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 lists acetamiprid twice, which is redundant and should be corrected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), for failure to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim 1 recites an application rate of depolymerized CMC of “from 0.11 to 0.87 kg/ha”. The specification at ¶[0018] discloses a range of from 0.01 to 3.0 kg/ha, preferably from 0.05 to 1.5 kg/ha. The Examples report specific application rates of 1.38 L/ha (Example 1), 1.42 L/ha (Example 2), and cumulative rates totaling 11.7 L/ha of MIX 1 (Example 3), which Applicant calculates in the Remarks as corresponding to 0.87 kg/ha of D-CMC. However, nowhere in the original specification is the specific sub-range 0.11 to 0.87 kg/ha expressly disclosed. While the specification discloses a broader range and discloses specific working examples at the upper end (0.87 kg/ha), there is no disclosure of the lower bound of 0.11 kg/ha. Moreover, the specification does not disclose any endpoint at 0.11 kg/ha, nor does it describe this range as a preferred or critical sub-range. This is a new matter rejection.
The written description requires that the applicant convey with reasonable clarity that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention as of the filing date (see Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). A mere broad disclosure does not constitute description of every sub-range therein (see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 265 (CCPA 1976), wherein selection of a narrow range from a broader range may lack written description absent disclosure of the criticality of the selected range). Dependent claims 3, 4, 6-13, 15 and 16 are included in this rejection because they do not cure the defect noted above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which Applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites, “…applying an amount of the aqueous ready-to-use formulation onto soil around the plant…”, which lacks antecedent basis. The claim does not first introduce “a plant” before referring to “the plant.” The use of the definite article “the” presumes an antecedent recitation that does not exist (see MPEP § 2173.05(e)). Dependent claims 3, 4, 6-13, 15 and 16 are included in this rejection because they do not cure the defect noted above.
Claim 6 recites, which depends from claim 1 recites, “…is mixed with an effective amount of a systemic active substance or a microbial inoculant…”, it is unclear as to if the systemic active substance or microbial inoculant of claim 6 refers to an additional new systemic active substance or microbial inoculant or is a reference to the systemic active substance or microbial inoculant of claim 1 (in which case claim 6 should read, “an effective amount of the systemic active substance or the microbial inoculant” for proper antecedent basis). Dependent claims 7-9 are included in this rejection because they do not cure the defect noted above.
Claims 10-16 are rejected because they recite Markush groups using open-ended transitional language as, “…wherein the systemic…is…[member A], [member B], …or [member Z].”, without the closed transitional phrase “selected from the group consisting of”. Proper Markush groups should use the transitional phrase “consisting of” to indicate a closed set of alternatives (see Ex parte Kiely, Appeal 2019-00469 (PTAB 2021); MPEP § 2173.05(h)). The use of open-ended language (e.g., “is A, B, …or Z”) creates ambiguity as to whether other unrecited species are encompassed.
The applicant may amend the claims to overcome the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AlA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Di Modugno et al. (US-9464227-B2; published 11 Oct 2016, hereinafter referred to as “Di Modugno”) in view of Clark et al. (AU-606890-B2; published 21 Feb 1991, hereinafter refered to as “Clark”).
Di Modugno teaches a method for moisturizing soils using formulations comprising a concentrated aqueous composition from 10 to 30% by weight of a depolymerized carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) having a weight average molecular weight between 10,000 and 80,000 Da, 15 to 50% by weight of compatibilizer chosen among glycerol (a polyol) and sodium xylene sulfonate and from 0.5 to 20% by weight of at least a surfactant (significantly overlapping with the instant claim 6 ranges and significantly overlapping with or encompassing the instant claim 7 ranges), and preparing a liquid aqueous ready-to-use formulation comprising from 0.1 to 3.5% by weight of the concentrated aqueous composition, and applying on soil (column 3, lines 41-55).
Examples 2-4, 7 and 8 teach the use of 13.2% w/w CMC, compatibilizer selected from 38% w/w glycerol or propylene glycol or 15.2% w/w sodium xylene sulfonate and 0.6% w/w coco-alkyl polyglucoside citrate (APG-Citrate, commercialized by Lamberti SpA as Eucarol AGE EC) or 1.4% w/w sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate (Table 3), encompassed within the instant claim 6 and 7 ranges (see In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 682 (CCPA 1962) and Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp., 441 F.3d 991 (Fed. Cir. 2006), wherein a single enabling example species within the claimed genus range anticipates the genus if that species falls squarely within the claim).
In addition, evidentiary reference Klimov et al. (WO-2015124330-A1; published 27 Aug 2015), further teaches aqueous agrochemical formulations comprising cellulose ethers at concentrations overlapping the claimed ranges, having broader surfactant and compatibilizer ranges, including polyols and glycerol derivatives for stable concentrate formulations suitable for dilution and soil or seed application, wherein the cellulose ether may contain 3 to 30 wt%...” (page 3, line 35), which encompasses the lower instant claimed range. Klimov futher teaches, pre-mixed formulation seed treatments “where the auxiliaries can be a surfactant in an amount of 0 to 50 percent” and said “compatibilizer” as a polyol glycerol ester is also considered a surfactant, as “Suitable surfactants are surface-active compounds, such as anionic, cationic, nonionic and amphoteric surfactants, block polymers, polyelectrolytes, and mixtures thereof. Such surfactants can be used as emusifier, dispersant, solubilizer, wetter, penetration enhancer, protective colloid, or adjuvant. Examples of surfactants are listed in McCutcheon's, Vol.1 : Emulsifiers & Detergents, McCutcheon's Directories, Glen Rock, USA, 2008 (International Ed. or North American Ed.)…. Examples of esters are fatty acid esters, glycerol esters or monoglycerides…” (page 6, line 16-22 and 41). Thus, the instant claimed ranges (CMC 4-25 wt%, compatibilizer 10-45 wt%, surfactant 0.2-10 wt%) are fully encompassed by or directly adjacent to the ranges taught by Klimov and Di Modugno.
The anionic, cationic, non-ionic and ampholytic surfactants and mixtures thereof can be used as the surfactant, preferably anionic surfactants (column 4, lines 53-55; see also claim 9) and preferred nonionic surfactants are polyethoxylated alcohols (column 5, lines 15-16). Wherein the depolymerized carboxymethyl cellulose is a potassium salt (claim 6), subranges of depolymerized carboxymethyl cellulose having an average molecular weight of from about 15,000 to about 50,000 Da (claim 5), and concentration subranges of depolymerized carboxymethyl cellulose from about 12 to about 25 wt % (claim 2), compatibilizer from about 25 to about 45 wt. % (claim 3), and surfactant from about 0.5 to about 10 wt. % (claim 4) are taught.
Di Modugno teaches, “The disclosed aqueous solutions of the invention can be applied by, e.g., spraying between 60 to 500 l/ha, preferably 150 to 300 l/ha, or by sprinkling or dripping between 0.4 and 120 l/hour per emitter.” (column 6, lines 23-26) and a CMC concentration in the ready-to-use formulation 0.01-1.05 wt% (calculated as 0.1-3.5% of 10-30% concentrated CMC from column 3, lines 41-55). At a density of approximately 1 kg/L, these teachings inherently yield a calculable CMC application rate range of 0.006 to 15 kg/ha. However, Di Modugno does not explicitly teach the specific sub-range of 0.11 to 0.87 kg/ha of depolymerized CMC.
Clark teaches the use of agrochemical compositions for treating plants containing active ingredients “from 0.01 to 10 kg/ha, preferably 0.01 to 4kg/ha” (page 11, column 6, lines 29-30). Clark thus teaches that 0.01-10 kg/ha is a conventional, effective field application rate for agrochemical active ingredients. One of ordinary skill in the art, seeking to apply Di Modugno's depolymerized CMC composition as a carrier or adjuvant for agrochemical actives, would be motivated to apply the depolymerized CMC at the at the same conventional rates taught by Clark. The claimed sub-range of 0.11-0.87 kg/ha falls entirely within Clark's disclosed range and selecting an application rate within a known workable range to optimize known performance characteristics constitutes routine optimization (see MPEP § 2144.05, wherein optimization of known variables is prima facie obvious).
Di Modugno teaches compositions, “may also contain agrochemical active ingredients such as insecticides, herbicides, stabilizers, adjuvants, pH adjusters, anti-foam agents, plant nutrients including fertilizers and heavy metals, and the like. Preferred agrochemical active ingredients are plant nutrients.” (column 6, lines 1-6), thus teaching the limitation of instant claim 10.
Di Modugno does not explicitly teach the instant claimed systemic plant growth regulators (instant claim 11), systemic insecticides (instant claim 12), systemic fungicides or systemic bactericides (instant claim 13), systemic nematicides (instant claim 15) or microbial inoculants (instant claim 16).
The newly added claims 11-16 merely specify known categories or lists of conventional systemic actives, all of which were notoriously well known in the art for soil or root-zone application prior to the effective filing date.
Systemic plant growth regulators (auxins, cytokinins, gibberellins, etc.) are well-known and commercially available prior to the effective filing date- see also evidentiary reference Paternoster et al. (WO-2007146055-A2; published 21 Dec 2007) which establishes gelatinous plant soil moisturizing substrates consisting of at least one plant growth additive selected from the group consisting of plant growth hormones and plant growth regulators (claim 1), selected from a group consisting of gibberellins and auxins (claim 5).
Evidentiary reference Klimov et al. (WO-2015124330-A1; published 27 Aug 2015) teaches systemic insecticides are all well-known systemic active substances including carbamates, organophosphates, neonicotinoids, avermectins, milbemycins, fipronil the canonical phenylpyrazole, spinosins [spinosyns], imidacloprid, clothianidin, thiamethoxam, acetamiprid neonicotinoids, avermectins bamectin, emamectin, ivermectin, doramectin, eprinomectin, and milbemycins milbemectin, lepimectin, moxidectin, selamectin are milbemycins, systemic fungicides are all well-known systemic active substances including benzimidazoles, triazoles, phosphonates and phosphorothiolates organophosphate fungicides, antibiotics, pyrimidines, triazoles and piperazines, systemic nematicides are all well-known systemic active substances including carbamates, organophosphates, and avermectins as antibiotic nematicides (page 3 line 15-page 4, line 11).
Di Modugno teaches compositions that may contain plant nutrients including fertilizers (column 6, lines 1-6). It was well-known in the art prior to the effective filing date that microbial inoculants (e.g., Rhizobium, Bacillus subtilis) function as biofertilizers and biopesticides and are applied to soil as an alternative to or in conjunction with chemical fertilizers. Such microorganisms are recognized by the US EPA, FAO, and OECD as biofertilizers or biopesticides and are routinely applied to soil to enhance nutrient availability or suppress pests. It would have been obvious to substitute a known microbial biofertilizer for the conventional plant nutrient or fertilizer taught by Di Modugno to achieve the known benefits of biological nitrogen fixation or pathogen suppression, while simultaneously obtaining the soil moisture retention benefits of the depolymerized CMC formulation.
The evidentiary references provide explicit documentary evidence that these classes were conventional and commercially available. Because Di Modugno teaches the combination of depolymerized CMC with any agrochemical active, and the specific actives recited in claims 10-15 are merely exemplary of conventional, well-known systemic actives, it would have been obvious to substitute or select any of these known actives for the agrochemical active ingredient broadly taught by Di Modugno (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980), wherein substitution of one known equivalent for another is obvious and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007), wherein obvious to try when there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a well-known microbial inoculant for the plant nutrient or agrochemical active broadly taught by Di Modugno, particularly where the goal is to improve soil conditions and plant health, the identical goal of Di Modugno’s moisturizing method. The addition of a microbial inoculant to a soil-moisturizing composition is no more than the combination of two known soil-treatment agents, each performing its known function, with no unexpected synergy demonstrated (see MPEP § 2144.04, wherein combining prior art elements according to known methods yields prima facie obviousness).
Substituting one known systemic insecticide, fungicide, nematicide, growth regulator, or microbial inoculant for another in Di Modugno’s compositions represents predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions, consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. The applicant has not demonstrated that any specific active listed in claims 10-16 exhibits a non-obvious interaction with depolymerized CMC beyond the known moisture-retention and delivery benefits already taught by Di Modugno.
Response to Arguments
Applicant Arguments/Remarks of the reply, filed 23 December 2025, have been fully considered.
The applicant’s statement that “other distinctions may exist” and that arguments are made “without prejudice or disclaimer” is noted. However, the record for patentability must be complete and self-contained (see 37 C.F.R. § 1.111). Arguments not presented in this response cannot be presumed to exist and will not be considered if raised for the first time on appeal (see In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that Clark teaches an application rate for a phenoxy phthalide derivative of diphenyl ether, not for depolymerized CMC. The skilled artisan would not look to Clark to modify Di Modugno because Clark’s active ingredient is structurally and functionally distinct.
The argument is not persuasive. Clark is not cited for its specific active ingredient, but for its teaching of a well-established, conventional field application rate range for agrochemical compositions (0.01–10 kg/ha, preferably 0.01–4 kg/ha). Clark, p. 6, lines 29–30. This range is not taught as unique to diphenyl ether derivatives; rather, it reflects general agronomic practice for achieving effective soil treatment without waste or phytotoxicity.
Di Modugno teaches a soil-applied formulation containing depolymerized CMC and optionally an agrochemical active (col. 5, l. 66–col. 6, l. 6), application via spraying at 60–500 L/ha (col. 6, l. 23–26), a depolymerized CMC concentration in the ready-to-use formulation of 0.01–3.0 wt% (claim 12). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that from these disclosures, the CMC application rate in kg/ha is a simple, routine calculation: (Spray volume L/ha) × (CMC wt% in formulation) × (density ~1 kg/L) = CMC kg/ha. At 60 L/ha × 0.01% CMC = 0.006 kg/ha and at 500 L/ha × 3.0% CMC = 15 kg/ha.
The claimed range 0.11–0.87 kg/ha falls squarely within the broad range calculable from Di Modugno’s own express teachings. Clark’s disclosure of 0.01–10 kg/ha merely confirms that the lower end of this calculated range, specifically the claimed sub-range, is conventional and non-critical. Thus, the claimed application rate is not unexpected. It is the result of routine optimization of known parameters (spray volume and CMC concentration) that were already expressly disclosed by Di Modugno (see MPEP § 2144.05, wherein selecting an application rate within a known workable range to achieve a desired agronomic effect constitutes routine optimization, absent persuasive evidence of criticality).
The applicant argues the claimed rate produces unexpected results as shown by synergistic enhancement of Quadris®, Nimitz®, and Catapult®. The argument is not persuasive.
The “unexpected results” argument is improperly premised on the assumption that the application rate itself is the source of synergy. The evidence provided does not isolate the claimed rate as a critical or unexpected variable. Examples 1-3 compare formulations containing CMC + active vs. active alone. They do not compare the claimed rate (0.11–0.87 kg/ha) against other rates of CMC (e.g., below 0.11 or above 0.87). Nowhere do the Examples demonstrate that the synergy is unexpectedly present at 0.11–0.87 kg/ha but absent outside this range. Absent such a comparison, the alleged “unexpected results” are attributable to the mere presence of CMC, which Di Modugno already teaches improves moisture retention and agrochemical performance, not to the specific numerical rate now claimed (see In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139 (Fed. Cir. 1996), wherein unexpected results must be shown to be commensurate in scope with the claimed range).
The specification attributes improved efficacy to enhanced soil moisture retention, reduced leaching, and improved delivery, which are exactly the known and intended functions of depolymerized CMC in Di Modugno. The examples do not demonstrate that the claimed range is critical, nor do they compare against closely adjacent CMC application rates outside the claimed range, as required to establish unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims. The data reflects degree-of-improvement, not a difference in kind, and therefore does not overcome the prima facie case of obviousness. Thus, the applicant has failed to establish that the claimed sub-range yields unexpectedly superior results over the broader range inherently taught by Di Modugno.
Regarding claim 6, the applicant argues Klimov does not cure the deficiencies of Di Modugno and Clark because Klimov is directed to seed treatment, not soil application, and does not teach the specific ranges of claim 6. The argument is not persuasive. Klimov is cited only for its concentration ranges of cellulose ethers (3-30 wt%), surfactants (0–50 wt%), and compatibilizers (including polyol esters). Klimov, page 3, lines 35; page 6, lines 16–41. The field of use (seed treatment vs. soil application) is irrelevant to the compositional teaching.
Di Modugno teaches depolymerized CMC within overlapping molecular weight ranges (0.1–10 wt% in concentrate, claim 10), compatibilizers (10–20 wt%, claim 10), and surfactants (0.5–3 wt%, claim 10). Klimov teaches overlapping and broader ranges of for analogous aqueous cellulose ether concentrations, surfactants, and polyol compatibilizers in agrochemical formulations.
A person of ordinary skill seeking to expand or adjust the concentration of CMC, compatibilizer, or surfactant in Di Modugno’s concentrate (e.g., to improve stability, pourability, or dilution properties—would predictably look to Klimov for guidance on workable ranges for such components). The claimed ranges (CMC 4-25 wt%, compatibilizer 10-45 wt%, surfactant 0.2-10 wt%) are fully encompassed by or directly adjacent to the ranges taught by Klimov and Di Modugno. No unexpected results have been shown for these compositional ranges. The applicant has not presented arguments specific to these claims that overcome the overlapping-range and routine-formulation rationale.
Di Modugno explicitly teaches that depolymerized CMC compositions may include agrochemical active ingredients, including insecticides, herbicides, and plant nutrients, and are intended to improve delivery and efficacy of such actives when applied to soil.
The newly added claims merely specify known categories or lists of conventional systemic actives and microbes, all of which were notoriously well known in the art for soil or root-zone application prior to the effective filing date. Substituting one known systemic insecticide, fungicide, nematicide, growth regulator, or microbial inoculant for another in Di Modugno’s compositions represents predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. The applicant has not demonstrated that any specific active listed in claims 10-16 exhibits a non-obvious interaction with depolymerized CMC beyond the known moisture-retention and delivery benefits already taught by Di Modugno. Accordingly, new claims 10-16 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Di Modugno in view of Clark.
In summary, claims 1, 3, 4, 6-13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over DiModugno (US9464227B2) in view of Clark (AU606890B2). The applicant may respond by presenting persuasive arguments, amending the claims to overcome the cited deficiencies, and/or providing evidence demonstrating criticality or unexpected results commensurate in scope with the claims.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L. SCOTLAND whose telephone number is (571) 272-2979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at: http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Robert A. Wax can be reached at (571) 272-0623. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
/RL Scotland/
Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615